The Company deck was troublesome, I made the mistake of not taking out their Birds and Hierarchs early, then they dropped Tireless Trackers and Courser of Kruphix. The trackers did me in, and I couldn't take out the Coursers with their big butts and all. I also saw a Worship in their deck that never hit the board, and then in game 3 two Aven Mindcensors came down preventing me from finding the lands I needed.
I think this deck is called value town (a creature toolbox deck used by Todd Stevens)
About your side board id shave off 1 grim lavamancer and both kor firewalker since looks like you have no mirror match according to your meta, ill side in one extra copy of exquisite firecraft for fishes and bring in some graveyard hate like relic of progenitus , rest in peace, tormod's crypt even two copies of ensnaring bridge to shut down hollow one fatties and praying to not get 2x1 with Kolaghan's Command , you dont need that much of sideboard for elves, its pretty easy for burn to destroy their creatures before they get a critical mass, and the match up against lanter is pretty easy as well, bring in all your artifact hate and let eidolon of the great revel be the MVP, post sideboard they will bring leyline of sanctityand surgical extraction to exile all the copies of eidolon , the deck itself relies on drops 0,1 and 2, also carefull with cards like whir of invention tutoring a witchbane orb
I do definitely feel any consistent change to RB burn tends itself more toward a Rakdos hyper aggro deck than specifically burn. That kind of deck is where cards like Claim/Fame belong. Having any focus beyond direct damage makes burn that much less consistent and attacks its advantage. When developing an archetype it's imperative to consider what weaknesses exist and continue looking for cards that assist with those weakness while maintaining the general theme. Including most Rakdos cards does not help with this. The only way I'd see a black splash working is in a mardu build. As personal preferece, though, I never build burn lists that run 3 colors in the main deck. Splashing for a 3rd color in a blood moon meta with 19 lands only spells disaster.
If a splash or card doesn't improve the deck in some verifiable way, then don't play it. Burn has very specific weaknesses and the only reason changes should be made is to address those weaknesses more efficiently.
I'd argue with the inclusion of Sovereign's Bite the playability of RBg burn is probably superior to a Mardu list in much the same way that RWg is superior to a full on naya list. In the past the only viable way to splash black was to go full Jund Burn (Running atarka's command and bump in the night) or Mardu (running bump with boros charm/lightning helix.) except this is no longer the case. Truth be told (and some may disagree with me here but my testing proves this) the only viable main board black spell for a long time was bump in the night. Nothing else was really good enough in a burn shell unless you start to move the deck more towards Rakdos Aggro (as you pointed out.). Sovereign's bite is good enough to make a valid archetype and my testing showed it to be pretty close in consistency with RWg Burn in game one.
It's true that Sovereign's Bite isn't as good as Lightning Helix but it fixes the problem RB had that RW didn't. It makes it more consistent in faster games. The six life swing is huge in making burn viable against other "Fast" clocks and can be the difference between surviving or simply dying to someone else's clock. Most of the time Lightning Helix goes to the face but there are times when it doesn't. However, what RB does have is more one drops (Bump in the Night) which provides two benefits. One being more interaction with monastery swiftspear and another in sneaking in an additional 3 points burn. In magical christmas land games you can occasionally close out the match with a flash back bump in long control games. In enough games this is something that occurs every now and then.
RB Burn doesn't suffer the game one matchup. It is consistent enough that this isn't the problem. No, the real issue RB has is the weak removal. Go for the Throat from my playtesting is the best removal RB has access to. Path to Exile matters just that much. As I alluded to in my post everything should be consistent and support the gameplan. Removal doesn't do this and is another exception here. The difference is that Path to Exile is a catch all answer to the biggest threats that plague us while only needing one mana. This way we can lavaspike, lightning bolt, rift bolt, grim lavamancer, goblin guide, monastery swiftspear, etc with our other land or if we're on three lands have options for Skullcrack, Helix, Charm, etc. This is a huge advantage and isn't at all small. This is actually something Elcon pointed out to me (which is why I said in my post he was absolutely right.).
However, there is a reason to still play RB Burn and it does have one advantage over it's peer. If you're in a meta that desires some form of land destruction Contaminated Ground just simply beats the age old Molten Rain. It's flat out better and it isn't a contest. The one mana cost less is a big deal and the fact that either A) They never touch that land again or B) Ignore it and continue to use that land and accumulating additional damage really just makes it better. The other reason Black is viable is in Rakdos Charm which if you are in a meta that is very go wide heavy it makes a very flexible side board card. Graveyard Hate, Go Wide Hate, and Artifact Removal hate. There's a lot of value in that one card. Now one thing I will contest is this:
RB Burn wasn't playable until Sovereign's bite. Sorry, I ran it before Sovereign's Bite as do some of our members but our main board was still inferior to RWg as well as our side board options. What did we run? Bump? Bump is decent but what else? Some tried Claim to Fame. You agree it doesn't work in a true burn shell. Right on. So what else? Gonti's? I kind of showed the data on why it's bad. Terrible top deck, too slow if you don't have it in your opening hand or second draw, and on top of that can be removed by cards that get rid of permanent. So it can essentially be counterspelled (this is the big one) by abrupt decay, maelstrom pulse, and others.
RW and RWg has access to in their variants both charm and helix. This meant they didn't need Atarka's (many learned this) which also meant less shocking to oneself and a more stable manabase. Less damage to yourself also meant you were able to race easier. Bump is good enough in RB but not by itself. Sovereign makes black a viable color main board but the problem is we need a better removal spell than Go for the Throat or Terminate. Still, RB is closer than it's ever been.
Last thing I'm going to say is this: Gonti's machination actually proved to me why RB was so inconsistent before Sovereign's. Gonti is the best and easiest black spell we could fit into burn since Bump and the spell had been the sole reason I lost 11 games. So despite being a one drop burn spell it was terrible. Sovereign's Bite, on the other hand, has always been consistent, has never been a dead card, and was always a good cast. There were games I wish I could have slammed a creature with it but it has always done what it needed to do. Do damage and buy time for me to close out the game. It's not just slightly better than Gonti's. It's miles ahead of Gonti's. RB Burn is now VERY consistent game 1. Every game where you need to board in hard removal your consistency falters. On the upside go wide decks, the Tron Variants, and other decks we side in for land destruction become a bit easier to take out. RB Burn is now a viable option in certain meta but in overall meta is now just behind RW/RWg. Give us a removal that says something like "(B) Exile target creature from the game you lose 2-3 life." and we become equals. It's really that close.
Edit: Though, like Elcon said. I doubt that'll happen. Most decks are very happy with Fatal Push.
Well, a big thank you for those posts Reslin. I played RBg burn for a while now (about six months) and I must say I agree with all you've said. I will most likely use your decklist as a primer at least for the near future.
I'm particularly happy to hear that sovereign's bite is good. Obviously a worse Helix, but I saw a lot of people just dismissing the card because of that and I knew it had potential. Definitely looking forward to change my Gonti's Machination for those.
The Company deck was troublesome, I made the mistake of not taking out their Birds and Hierarchs early, then they dropped Tireless Trackers and Courser of Kruphix. The trackers did me in, and I couldn't take out the Coursers with their big butts and all. I also saw a Worship in their deck that never hit the board, and then in game 3 two Aven Mindcensors came down preventing me from finding the lands I needed.
I think this deck is called value town (a creature toolbox deck used by Todd Stevens)
About your side board id shave off 1 grim lavamancer and both kor firewalker since looks like you have no mirror match according to your meta, ill side in one extra copy of exquisite firecraft for fishes and bring in some graveyard hate like relic of progenitus , rest in peace, tormod's crypt even two copies of ensnaring bridge to shut down hollow one fatties and praying to not get 2x1 with Kolaghan's Command , you dont need that much of sideboard for elves, its pretty easy for burn to destroy their creatures before they get a critical mass, and the match up against lanter is pretty easy as well, bring in all your artifact hate and let eidolon of the great revel be the MVP, post sideboard they will bring leyline of sanctityand surgical extraction to exile all the copies of eidolon , the deck itself relies on drops 0,1 and 2, also carefull with cards like whir of invention tutoring a witchbane orb
Thanks for the feedback! I actually just founds this Vs. Series video of burn playing the Todd Stevens' GW Company deck (it is, in fact, the same deck I played against): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC1zs8DzPoY
The Video shows Todd Anderson making a few poor decisions piloting burn. He's also playing a weird hybrid of Loic Le Briand's deck with Shrine of Burning Rage. I think I would have taken the shrines out against the company deck and still played the remove bird/control game. Courser of Kruphix is such an annoying card for burn, Stevens' deck is something I'll not enjoy coming up against in future modern nights at my LGS. Is it worth bringing in Destructive Revelry against the Coursers?
Well, a big thank you for those posts Reslin. I played RBg burn for a while now (about six months) and I must say I agree with all you've said. I will most likely use your decklist as a primer at least for the near future.
I'm particularly happy to hear that sovereign's bite is good. Obviously a worse Helix, but I saw a lot of people just dismissing the card because of that and I knew it had potential. Definitely looking forward to change my Gonti's Machination for those.
No problem! Actually, to be quite honest, I discovered Contaminated Ground's potential through you. It flew under my radar and I decided to give it a shot and came to the conclusion it is definitely superior to molten rain. I wouldn't run them main board and wouldn't run more than two in the side but it's definitely a solid card so thank you for that.
Thanks for the feedback! I actually just founds this Vs. Series video of burn playing the Todd Stevens' GW Company deck (it is, in fact, the same deck I played against): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC1zs8DzPoY
The Video shows Todd Anderson making a few poor decisions piloting burn. He's also playing a weird hybrid of Loic Le Briand's deck with Shrine of Burning Rage. I think I would have taken the shrines out against the company deck and still played the remove bird/control game. Courser of Kruphix is such an annoying card for burn, Stevens' deck is something I'll not enjoy coming up against in future modern nights at my LGS. Is it worth bringing in Destructive Revelry against the Coursers?
If your only target with Destructive is the Coursers I wouldn't do it or you might end up in the situation you were in before (With them in hand and the player never draws them.) this isn't at all a good situation to be in. If you're going to run Destructive you want to in a matchup where either you have multiple targets or against a deck that uses cards that might as well be "Do this or you lose." In this case I'd run Path if you feel you must have some form of removal. This way if they don't draw the coursers you still have targets to hit.
I agree with almost everything you said, Reslin. As one of the bigger advocates for Gonti's Machinations on the forum, I obviously don't agree that it's unplayable. But, I do agree you need a high number of fetches to make it playable, and whether or not a person wants to do that would be their call. But, I'm absolutely stoked for Sovereign's Bite. I've been playing Mardu burn up until now and like you said, this was the card that Rakdos needed. The deck hasn't been competitive up until now. I've only begun my testing with it, so I don't have any real experience yet, but I have high hopes and your testing echoes that. I never thought of Go For the Throat as the black Path replacement, but it makes all the sense in the world. Imo, it's the best replacement bar none, like you said.
I agree that there's just no suitable replacement for Path, so I'm not trying to. I'm playing a RBw list right now, and that gives me the benefit of letting me keep enchantment removal.
I agree with almost everything you said, Reslin. As one of the bigger advocates for Gonti's Machinations on the forum, I obviously don't agree that it's unplayable. But, I do agree you need a high number of fetches to make it playable, and whether or not a person wants to do that would be their call. But, I'm absolutely stoked for Sovereign's Bite. I've been playing Mardu burn up until now and like you said, this was the card that Rakdos needed. The deck hasn't been competitive up until now. I've only begun my testing with it, so I don't have any real experience yet, but I have high hopes and your testing echoes that. I never thought of Go For the Throat as the black Path replacement, but it makes all the sense in the world. Imo, it's the best replacement bar none, like you said.
I agree that there's just no suitable replacement for Path, so I'm not trying to. I'm playing a RBw list right now, and that gives me the benefit of letting me keep enchantment removal.
Yeah, unfortunately it isn't as good as Path but I will definitely advocate it as our best removal spell. We already have enough artifact hate to not need terminate and our removal spell not having red is key for hitting things we want to hit that have protection. If you're running a splash of white then you can just use path anyway. As I mentioned even a "Exile target creature and take three." would more than be a viable enough removal spell. So shocking (or using a fetch making it a bolt) to get a Sacred Foundry for Path isn't a bad idea. In my meta there's enough anti-burn enchantments running around that I can't afford to give up revelry but your mileage might be different. For the meantime from my testing "usually" Go for the Throat is good enough but there's been cases (against decks you want removal and can seriously race you) that it's detrimental in the place of Path or just not good enough. Still, we're so so close now. If RWg Burn is Tier 1. I'd make the argument that we're Tier 1.5. If RWg Burn is Tier 1.5 then I'd make the argument that we're Tier 2 at this point. That's still plenty competitive.
I agree with almost everything you said, Reslin. As one of the bigger advocates for Gonti's Machinations on the forum, I obviously don't agree that it's unplayable. But, I do agree you need a high number of fetches to make it playable, and whether or not a person wants to do that would be their call. But, I'm absolutely stoked for Sovereign's Bite. I've been playing Mardu burn up until now and like you said, this was the card that Rakdos needed. The deck hasn't been competitive up until now. I've only begun my testing with it, so I don't have any real experience yet, but I have high hopes and your testing echoes that. I never thought of Go For the Throat as the black Path replacement, but it makes all the sense in the world. Imo, it's the best replacement bar none, like you said.
I agree that there's just no suitable replacement for Path, so I'm not trying to. I'm playing a RBw list right now, and that gives me the benefit of letting me keep enchantment removal.
Yeah, unfortunately it isn't as good as Path but I will definitely advocate it as our best removal spell. We already have enough artifact hate to not need terminate and our removal spell not having red is key for hitting things we want to hit that have protection. If you're running a splash of white then you can just use path anyway. As I mentioned even a "Exile target creature and take three." would more than be a viable enough removal spell. So shocking (or using a fetch making it a bolt) to get a Sacred Foundry for Path isn't a bad idea. In my meta there's enough anti-burn enchantments running around that I can't afford to give up revelry but your mileage might be different. For the meantime from my testing "usually" Go for the Throat is good enough but there's been cases (against decks you want removal and can seriously race you) that it's detrimental in the place of Path or just not good enough. Still, we're so so close now. If RWg Burn is Tier 1. I'd make the argument that we're Tier 1.5. If RWg Burn is Tier 1.5 then I'd make the argument that we're Tier 2 at this point. That's still plenty competitive.
I love that shock removal spell you made up. That could see print, easily.
I agree with almost everything you said, Reslin. As one of the bigger advocates for Gonti's Machinations on the forum, I obviously don't agree that it's unplayable. But, I do agree you need a high number of fetches to make it playable, and whether or not a person wants to do that would be their call. But, I'm absolutely stoked for Sovereign's Bite. I've been playing Mardu burn up until now and like you said, this was the card that Rakdos needed. The deck hasn't been competitive up until now. I've only begun my testing with it, so I don't have any real experience yet, but I have high hopes and your testing echoes that. I never thought of Go For the Throat as the black Path replacement, but it makes all the sense in the world. Imo, it's the best replacement bar none, like you said.
I agree that there's just no suitable replacement for Path, so I'm not trying to. I'm playing a RBw list right now, and that gives me the benefit of letting me keep enchantment removal.
Yeah, unfortunately it isn't as good as Path but I will definitely advocate it as our best removal spell. We already have enough artifact hate to not need terminate and our removal spell not having red is key for hitting things we want to hit that have protection. If you're running a splash of white then you can just use path anyway. As I mentioned even a "Exile target creature and take three." would more than be a viable enough removal spell. So shocking (or using a fetch making it a bolt) to get a Sacred Foundry for Path isn't a bad idea. In my meta there's enough anti-burn enchantments running around that I can't afford to give up revelry but your mileage might be different. For the meantime from my testing "usually" Go for the Throat is good enough but there's been cases (against decks you want removal and can seriously race you) that it's detrimental in the place of Path or just not good enough. Still, we're so so close now. If RWg Burn is Tier 1. I'd make the argument that we're Tier 1.5. If RWg Burn is Tier 1.5 then I'd make the argument that we're Tier 2 at this point. That's still plenty competitive.
I love that shock removal spell you made up. That could see print, easily.
Haha. Thanks. It's my dream black removal print. Also sounds like a suitable drawback I can envision black having. I doubt I'll ever see it but a man can dream, right?
indeed shrine of burning rage was meant to make burn deck more of a tempo strat than aggro, isnt strong anymore because it was brought up for a meta filled up with GRIXIS DEATH SHADOW, instead of siding in destructive revelry id go for path to exile , since it can hit courser of kruphix some fat knight of the reliquary or scavenging ooze, pro players actually understimate burn thinking it is a 3x7= 21 and easy to pilot deck , last night i was watching a stream from jeff hoogland playing burn where he commited a lot of mistakes he even said burn isnt tier 1 anymore
Phew, okay was way too sick for a while there. GP Pittsburgh weekend went like this over the course of five side events:
1-2 in a double prize, 2-0-1 (split at the end) in the second double
1-2 in one single, 2-1, 3-0 in the others (the evening one of course, damn kid wouldn't split and let me go home)
I've been on a 19 land, 1 shard volley, 1 grim lavamancer, 3 helix build for the past few weeks. I'm looking at dropping the volley for a 20th land. I just had too many one-landers mulled or borderline keeps end up going nowhere. OR I drop the volley for the 4th helix, because a one-land hand with volley is awkward even if there are a couple of swiftspears or something else that could justify a keep in certain situations.
What I did really like, though, was finally being able to run DRev in the side as opposed to wear/tear and smash to smithereens on a split. It took me a couple of games to get used to thinking about fetching the stomping ground after not having it for two months.
Phew, okay was way too sick for a while there. GP Pittsburgh weekend went like this over the course of five side events:
1-2 in a double prize, 2-0-1 (split at the end) in the second double
1-2 in one single, 2-1, 3-0 in the others (the evening one of course, damn kid wouldn't split and let me go home)
I've been on a 19 land, 1 shard volley, 1 grim lavamancer, 3 helix build for the past few weeks. I'm looking at dropping the volley for a 20th land. I just had too many one-landers mulled or borderline keeps end up going nowhere. OR I drop the volley for the 4th helix, because a one-land hand with volley is awkward even if there are a couple of swiftspears or something else that could justify a keep in certain situations.
What I did really like, though, was finally being able to run DRev in the side as opposed to wear/tear and smash to smithereens on a split. It took me a couple of games to get used to thinking about fetching the stomping ground after not having it for two months.
That's my big issue with shard volley. Even at 20 lands the possible situation of a one lander with shard volley is very real or a situation where you're stuck on two lands, have a shard volley, and a bunch of two drops. In either situation Shard Volley becomes a hindrance. I'd drop the shard volley for another Helix. Personally I prefer 20 lands in a RW or RWg shell. I justify 19 lands with my RBg variant due to the 4 Bumps. Probably go down to 3 skullcracks for that 20th land. Right now in the current meta I believe Helix > Skullcrack.
indeed shrine of burning rage was meant to make burn deck more of a tempo strat than aggro, isnt strong anymore because it was brought up for a meta filled up with GRIXIS DEATH SHADOW, instead of siding in destructive revelry id go for path to exile , since it can hit courser of kruphix some fat knight of the reliquary or scavenging ooze, pro players actually understimate burn thinking it is a 3x7= 21 and easy to pilot deck , last night i was watching a stream from jeff hoogland playing burn where he commited a lot of mistakes he even said burn isnt tier 1 anymore
The amusing thing about this is that Burn has dropped from Tier 1 just to be Tier 1 a month or two later. The meta is constantly shifting but the sheer number of 5-0+ wins Burn has had over the past three years isn't something that people can deny. When we're hated out our win% drops quite a bit but as soon as it does people stop hating us out and.. history repeats. Burn is always a safe meta deck because of the consistency. We'll always perform at least "well."
This isn't just for burn: it is a major flaw to assume that pros are better than average with every single deck.
Pros typically understand decks, even aside from playing them, by having the sheer number of games against them but even then you're absolutely right. You can't truly know the in's and outs of a deck until you have played for many reps with said deck. Not everyone is going to be able to expertly pilot each deck either. I agree 100%.
I know I posted a page or two ago but I’ve moved from Rakdos Burn to Naya, mainly because I was pressured to see how different it would feel in contrast.
I’m liking the change, and get why it’s the “pinnacle” version of burn. RB has that explosiveness that would get people to near lethal but I had a tough time closing in - esp vs Jeskai Control matchups, where they’d be at 1, and the rest of the game would be them countering and gaining life thanks to Lightninng Helix.
White really does offer a lot of wonderful options.
I want to talk again to this card Ramunap ruins may be played in our deck. I am testing more to more variant version of Burn with or without shard volleys, with or without lavamancer, 18 to 20 lands. I have personally an hidden talent to systematically draw a land after fetch or do the classic one-burn-from-lethal-topdeck-land game lost.
Online I am doing series of GP training with 4 ramunap ruins. You exposed your arguments against that card because of the ping you take then "if I reach 5 lands, I have already lost". Well, I am totally disagree and advocate for that card.
You guys assume to play 20 lands version which means pretty much to hit three lands on table. A land with three hands, we keep. If you draw a land that is fine. But we can afford to have maximum four lands on the field because every other draw of land means like you skip your drawing phase. It is very terrible. Ramunap ruins allows us to just Shock the opponent. We can afford to take the ping sometimes. The reach of this card is real. I don't count so many times when it happens.
Then there some situations where the ability of this land would be better than casting a spell. Against control, what they do ? Nothing. Take your 2 damages and die, or if you passed your turn to play on mine you skip a turn for nothing.
When we are to sequence our spells, with five lands on table because we were unlucky, we can start by this one.
It is not barbarian ring as you told me many times elconquistador but be honest guys, why are you still splitting on this card when one of our main problem is lands after the fourth one ? Especially when we play helix to minimise this fact (same as ping fetch or 3 from shock) and win the race.
I am now on this :
3 mountains, 8 fetches, 1 ground, 2 foundry, 4 ruins, 2 vantage.
The reason I down to 2 vantage is because at 20 lands the probability that it comes tapped is higher.
2) I would also have your opinion about the sideboard: would you prefer to have 2 lavamancer or 2 searing blood ? Considering that you play 20 land list with 4-off every cards.
3) I asked this question on lavaspike and I think it would probably be useful in this topic: if we play 2 Ensnaring bridge and 2 path to exile in our sideboard, how to side them ?
I mean, against death shadow, value town, affinity, hollow one, humans, etc, etc. What am I supposed to bring against that match-up ? Should I bring only bridge or should I bring only path or should I bring both cards ? Then why ?
The question isn't "how many games does Ruins win." The question is "how many games are won by its ability compared to how many are lost due to taking extra damage." However, I have no need to scoff at an idea considering I'm only three months into the deck. I have said before that I play in a very VERY fair overall meta that is always half or more midrange and control. I'll try two ruins. However, it is critical to also realize that for red mana you have to ping yourself, which sucks against affinity, burn, etc.
As for the other questions, I absolutely love searing blood. Lavamancer gets two damage for two mana, so does blood, but it also can bolt the opponent. It also has summoning sickness, and if I am the control player I want to zap humans before they can get pumped by a lieutenant and put out of range. I don't think one is waaaaaay better than the other, but my preference is searing blood.
I'd bring in path against humans in order to kill auriok champion, especially if you don't draw bridge early. I think against affinity you bring in drev or smash over path for the same reason I like searing blood - you can keep the control plan going without slowing down too much.
Value Town I'd say path, because they probably board in obstinate baloths. Also kills voice of resurgence without worrying about tokens.
I want to talk again to this card Ramunap ruins may be played in our deck. I am testing more to more variant version of Burn with or without shard volleys, with or without lavamancer, 18 to 20 lands. I have personally an hidden talent to systematically draw a land after fetch or do the classic one-burn-from-lethal-topdeck-land game lost.
Online I am doing series of GP training with 4 ramunap ruins. You exposed your arguments against that card because of the ping you take then "if I reach 5 lands, I have already lost". Well, I am totally disagree and advocate for that card.
You guys assume to play 20 lands version which means pretty much to hit three lands on table. A land with three hands, we keep. If you draw a land that is fine. But we can afford to have maximum four lands on the field because every other draw of land means like you skip your drawing phase. It is very terrible. Ramunap ruins allows us to just Shock the opponent. We can afford to take the ping sometimes. The reach of this card is real. I don't count so many times when it happens.
Then there some situations where the ability of this land would be better than casting a spell. Against control, what they do ? Nothing. Take your 2 damages and die, or if you passed your turn to play on mine you skip a turn for nothing.
When we are to sequence our spells, with five lands on table because we were unlucky, we can start by this one.
It is not barbarian ring as you told me many times elconquistador but be honest guys, why are you still splitting on this card when one of our main problem is lands after the fourth one ? Especially when we play helix to minimise this fact (same as ping fetch or 3 from shock) and win the race.
I don't think that Ramunap Ruins is playable. The ping can be too much against a fast aggro deck like Affinity and Humans and the sacrifice ability is not likely to be meaningful at all against a deck like that either. I'm sure it has won you some games, but it will cost you games while it's just an irrelevant land that pings you every time you have to tap it. It's not Barbarian Ring and there are some high hurdles you have to jump through in order to turn it on. You can't count on ever being able to use the tap ability unless you're playing against a very slow deck, and the card will hurt you against the fast ones.
In addition to that, I don't play it because there's no in the manabase for it. I believe that 3 Mountains is a firm minimum (and frankly, is also the maximum). I believe that 2 Foundry is a firm minimum. I believe that 3 Vantage is a firm minimum in RW. I believe that 10 fetches is a malleable minumum. Beyond that, I believe that RW needs 14 at least 14 white sources. So, that means that the defaults are 3 Mountain, 10 fetch, 2 Shock, 3 Vantage and that puts me at 18 lands, and I play another Vantage/Fetch to get to 19. Once you go shaving a lot of fetches for straight red lands, you're diluting your ability to get white.
I don't agree with your claim that "one of our main problem is lands after the fourth one". Burn is built to avoid flooding by playing a low land count. Even if you played 8 lands in your deck, there's a non-zero chance that you see all 8 in the top 10 cards of your deck. It's just variance from a random pile of cards. What Burn wants (against a goldfish) is to have just enough lands (but not more) to cast enough spells in the fewest turns. Ramunap Ruins does not accomplish that for you, because it's a meaningless card unless you've drawn several more lands that you didn't want to see. If you're flooding, there's a strong chance that your opponent is at 10 by the time you sacrifice RR. Getting them to 8 with RR is better than nothing, but you're still up a creek without a paddle. I think you're trying to solve a problem that isn't solvable and you're using a card that doesn't help solve the problem in order to solve it.
I am now on this :
3 mountains, 8 fetches, 1 ground, 2 foundry, 4 ruins, 2 vantage.
The reason I down to 2 vantage is because at 20 lands the probability that it comes tapped is higher.
2) I would also have your opinion about the sideboard: would you prefer to have 2 lavamancer or 2 searing blood ? Considering that you play 20 land list with 4-off every cards.
3) I asked this question on lavaspike and I think it would probably be useful in this topic: if we play 2 Ensnaring bridge and 2 path to exile in our sideboard, how to side them ?
I mean, against death shadow, value town, affinity, hollow one, humans, etc, etc. What am I supposed to bring against that match-up ? Should I bring only bridge or should I bring only path or should I bring both cards ? Then why ?
1. I think that you have too much red and not enough ability to color fix, and it's especially problematic that you're on 9 green sources. You can generally afford a tapped Vantage as the 4th land, and having 20 lands doesn't have a strong effect on flooding anyway.
2. I'd rather have Lavamancer, but I play them in the maindeck because of that.
3. I don't play Bridge because I don't want to dump 3 mana on it just to have it removed.
I want to talk again to this card Ramunap ruins may be played in our deck. I am testing more to more variant version of Burn with or without shard volleys, with or without lavamancer, 18 to 20 lands. I have personally an hidden talent to systematically draw a land after fetch or do the classic one-burn-from-lethal-topdeck-land game lost.
Online I am doing series of GP training with 4 ramunap ruins. You exposed your arguments against that card because of the ping you take then "if I reach 5 lands, I have already lost". Well, I am totally disagree and advocate for that card.
You guys assume to play 20 lands version which means pretty much to hit three lands on table. A land with three hands, we keep. If you draw a land that is fine. But we can afford to have maximum four lands on the field because every other draw of land means like you skip your drawing phase. It is very terrible. Ramunap ruins allows us to just Shock the opponent. We can afford to take the ping sometimes. The reach of this card is real. I don't count so many times when it happens.
Then there some situations where the ability of this land would be better than casting a spell. Against control, what they do ? Nothing. Take your 2 damages and die, or if you passed your turn to play on mine you skip a turn for nothing.
When we are to sequence our spells, with five lands on table because we were unlucky, we can start by this one.
It is not barbarian ring as you told me many times elconquistador but be honest guys, why are you still splitting on this card when one of our main problem is lands after the fourth one ? Especially when we play helix to minimise this fact (same as ping fetch or 3 from shock) and win the race.
I am now on this :
3 mountains, 8 fetches, 1 ground, 2 foundry, 4 ruins, 2 vantage.
The reason I down to 2 vantage is because at 20 lands the probability that it comes tapped is higher.
2) I would also have your opinion about the sideboard: would you prefer to have 2 lavamancer or 2 searing blood ? Considering that you play 20 land list with 4-off every cards.
3) I asked this question on lavaspike and I think it would probably be useful in this topic: if we play 2 Ensnaring bridge and 2 path to exile in our sideboard, how to side them ?
I mean, against death shadow, value town, affinity, hollow one, humans, etc, etc. What am I supposed to bring against that match-up ? Should I bring only bridge or should I bring only path or should I bring both cards ? Then why ?
Ramunap Ruins isn't something I'd play outside of a budget mono red build for much the same reason as Elcon just listed. In a budget red build I'd use it simply because we have fewer good cards to get that last bit of damage to close out the game. However, here, we're talking about a budget list that isn't going to be as consistent as the fine tuned lists that actually put up results in events larger than an FNM. That one damage each time you use it for a red source adds up and sometimes (although it doesn't happen much) you're going to need to fetch a mountain with your fetches. I think one of your big issues is the fact that you're running only 8 fetches. You should really run the gamut of 10.
Look, I get what you're saying about closing out some games that allow you to get more than 4 mana but I'm going to make the presumption, based on experience, that what you're experiencing is confirmation bias. Let's talk about a relevant example. I play Rakdos Burn and have talked about it in length here on these forums. One of the reasons I run it is to have more one drops via Bump In the Night. However, the reasons I advocate Bump's effectiveness is as an additional 4 lavaspike. Not because it can be flashed back. Have I won games from flashing it back? Yes but those are rare. Here's another thing.. bump isn't costing me 1 life each turn like it would if I had two Ramunap ruins in my opening hand.
As for your question on side board.. Searing Blood is amazing for this meta and I wouldn't run a sideboard without it. At the same time I think you should be running Grim Lavamancers in your main. If you take a look at the winning burn lists nearly every list has at least 1 grim lavamancer. I don't believe you need any for your side. Also most of us are in agreement at this point and are moving away from the bridge plan. While it can close out games there's just too much variance and when you tap out just to have it removed it sets you back pretty far. As a burn deck we want to eliminate our opponent as quickly as possible so setting yourself back an entire turn is not an efficient way to win your gameplan.
I think you are focused too much on the pros of these cards and ignoring the cons out of a desire to innovate. Like I said, I'm willing to test ruins because I have a weird meta with a lot of slow decks played by grinders who want to minimize bad matchups. When you play four rounds and are guaranteed two will be mardu/jund/jeskai/blue moon, perhaps it will work. I may be in the weird situation where this works, but if my meta looked like MTGO or anything more linear like what I saw in the GP side events, I'd drop it in a heartbeat.
You're gonna lose because you draw three straight lands sometimes. ***** happens. Don't make a finely-tuned deck in terms of MB worse 95% of the time so that you can feel better about a situation that occurs the remaining 5%.
I do definitely feel any consistent change to RB burn tends itself more toward a Rakdos hyper aggro deck than specifically burn. That kind of deck is where cards like Claim/Fame belong. Having any focus beyond direct damage makes burn that much less consistent and attacks its advantage. When developing an archetype it's imperative to consider what weaknesses exist and continue looking for cards that assist with those weakness while maintaining the general theme. Including most Rakdos cards does not help with this. The only way I'd see a black splash working is in a mardu build. As personal preferece, though, I never build burn lists that run 3 colors in the main deck. Splashing for a 3rd color in a blood moon meta with 19 lands only spells disaster.
If a splash or card doesn't improve the deck in some verifiable way, then don't play it. Burn has very specific weaknesses and the only reason changes should be made is to address those weaknesses more efficiently.
I'd argue with the inclusion of Sovereign's Bite the playability of RBg burn is probably superior to a Mardu list in much the same way that RWg is superior to a full on naya list. In the past the only viable way to splash black was to go full Jund Burn (Running atarka's command and bump in the night) or Mardu (running bump with boros charm/lightning helix.) except this is no longer the case. Truth be told (and some may disagree with me here but my testing proves this) the only viable main board black spell for a long time was bump in the night. Nothing else was really good enough in a burn shell unless you start to move the deck more towards Rakdos Aggro (as you pointed out.). Sovereign's bite is good enough to make a valid archetype and my testing showed it to be pretty close in consistency with RWg Burn in game one.
It's true that Sovereign's Bite isn't as good as Lightning Helix but it fixes the problem RB had that RW didn't. It makes it more consistent in faster games. The six life swing is huge in making burn viable against other "Fast" clocks and can be the difference between surviving or simply dying to someone else's clock. Most of the time Lightning Helix goes to the face but there are times when it doesn't. However, what RB does have is more one drops (Bump in the Night) which provides two benefits. One being more interaction with monastery swiftspear and another in sneaking in an additional 3 points burn. In magical christmas land games you can occasionally close out the match with a flash back bump in long control games. In enough games this is something that occurs every now and then.
RB Burn doesn't suffer the game one matchup. It is consistent enough that this isn't the problem. No, the real issue RB has is the weak removal. Go for the Throat from my playtesting is the best removal RB has access to. Path to Exile matters just that much. As I alluded to in my post everything should be consistent and support the gameplan. Removal doesn't do this and is another exception here. The difference is that Path to Exile is a catch all answer to the biggest threats that plague us while only needing one mana. This way we can lavaspike, lightning bolt, rift bolt, grim lavamancer, goblin guide, monastery swiftspear, etc with our other land or if we're on three lands have options for Skullcrack, Helix, Charm, etc. This is a huge advantage and isn't at all small. This is actually something Elcon pointed out to me (which is why I said in my post he was absolutely right.).
However, there is a reason to still play RB Burn and it does have one advantage over it's peer. If you're in a meta that desires some form of land destruction Contaminated Ground just simply beats the age old Molten Rain. It's flat out better and it isn't a contest. The one mana cost less is a big deal and the fact that either A) They never touch that land again or B) Ignore it and continue to use that land and accumulating additional damage really just makes it better. The other reason Black is viable is in Rakdos Charm which if you are in a meta that is very go wide heavy it makes a very flexible side board card. Graveyard Hate, Go Wide Hate, and Artifact Removal hate. There's a lot of value in that one card. Now one thing I will contest is this:
RB Burn wasn't playable until Sovereign's bite. Sorry, I ran it before Sovereign's Bite as do some of our members but our main board was still inferior to RWg as well as our side board options. What did we run? Bump? Bump is decent but what else? Some tried Claim to Fame. You agree it doesn't work in a true burn shell. Right on. So what else? Gonti's? I kind of showed the data on why it's bad. Terrible top deck, too slow if you don't have it in your opening hand or second draw, and on top of that can be removed by cards that get rid of permanent. So it can essentially be counterspelled (this is the big one) by abrupt decay, maelstrom pulse, and others.
RW and RWg has access to in their variants both charm and helix. This meant they didn't need Atarka's (many learned this) which also meant less shocking to oneself and a more stable manabase. Less damage to yourself also meant you were able to race easier. Bump is good enough in RB but not by itself. Sovereign makes black a viable color main board but the problem is we need a better removal spell than Go for the Throat or Terminate. Still, RB is closer than it's ever been.
Last thing I'm going to say is this: Gonti's machination actually proved to me why RB was so inconsistent before Sovereign's. Gonti is the best and easiest black spell we could fit into burn since Bump and the spell had been the sole reason I lost 11 games. So despite being a one drop burn spell it was terrible. Sovereign's Bite, on the other hand, has always been consistent, has never been a dead card, and was always a good cast. There were games I wish I could have slammed a creature with it but it has always done what it needed to do. Do damage and buy time for me to close out the game. It's not just slightly better than Gonti's. It's miles ahead of Gonti's. RB Burn is now VERY consistent game 1. Every game where you need to board in hard removal your consistency falters. On the upside go wide decks, the Tron Variants, and other decks we side in for land destruction become a bit easier to take out. RB Burn is now a viable option in certain meta but in overall meta is now just behind RW/RWg. Give us a removal that says something like "(B) Exile target creature from the game you lose 2-3 life." and we become equals. It's really that close.
Edit: Though, like Elcon said. I doubt that'll happen. Most decks are very happy with Fatal Push.
I'm not necessarily arguging against RB, but RBW (I find color consistency to be victimized if we push tri-color in a blood moon meta.) I recognize there is some merit to RB, since it has more one drop spells due to Bump in the Night. The sideboard is also arguably stronger, since sometimes hte only white card we side in is path to exile. At least black would give fatal push, Rain of Gore, Rakdos Charm, and collective brutality (odd choices, but brutality is a "burn" spell by itself.
Your last statement is where I think the final nail in the coffin arrives when considering different color combinations. Black doesn't provide QUITE ENOUGH yet to justify dropping white altogether. If Deathrite Shaman were still legal, then yeah, I'd say RB were superior. But, for the time being, we would need a 2 mana burn spell that provides direct burn with some additional effect. It's really a shame Rakdos charm doesn't help burn at all main deck. There were quite a few good effects they could have packed in: deal 2 damage to target creature or player, destroy target artifact, remove two cards in a graveyard from the game. I would even be okay with a RB enhancement or 3 mana planeswalker (something burn desperately needs.) Collective brutality almost made the cut, but 2 damage to gain 2 life was not good enough.
I am definitely okay with doing testing on the RB front. I have both a hyper aggro and 1 drop RB emphasis with Bomat Courier I want to try. Here is the basic idea behind it:
That's more or less the idea. You want to play low cost, high efficiency spells and maximize the number of them you have through Bomat Courier. The higher cost spells are situational and thrown into the sideboard. I forgot how good Rakdos Charm was in this meta. Built in Relic, punishes affinity, new goblins, and mardu tokens, artifact hate.
I think this deck is called value town (a creature toolbox deck used by Todd Stevens)
About your side board id shave off 1 grim lavamancer and both kor firewalker since looks like you have no mirror match according to your meta, ill side in one extra copy of exquisite firecraft for fishes and bring in some graveyard hate like relic of progenitus , rest in peace, tormod's crypt even two copies of ensnaring bridge to shut down hollow one fatties and praying to not get 2x1 with Kolaghan's Command , you dont need that much of sideboard for elves, its pretty easy for burn to destroy their creatures before they get a critical mass, and the match up against lanter is pretty easy as well, bring in all your artifact hate and let eidolon of the great revel be the MVP, post sideboard they will bring leyline of sanctityand surgical extraction to exile all the copies of eidolon , the deck itself relies on drops 0,1 and 2, also carefull with cards like whir of invention tutoring a witchbane orb
I'd argue with the inclusion of Sovereign's Bite the playability of RBg burn is probably superior to a Mardu list in much the same way that RWg is superior to a full on naya list. In the past the only viable way to splash black was to go full Jund Burn (Running atarka's command and bump in the night) or Mardu (running bump with boros charm/lightning helix.) except this is no longer the case. Truth be told (and some may disagree with me here but my testing proves this) the only viable main board black spell for a long time was bump in the night. Nothing else was really good enough in a burn shell unless you start to move the deck more towards Rakdos Aggro (as you pointed out.). Sovereign's bite is good enough to make a valid archetype and my testing showed it to be pretty close in consistency with RWg Burn in game one.
It's true that Sovereign's Bite isn't as good as Lightning Helix but it fixes the problem RB had that RW didn't. It makes it more consistent in faster games. The six life swing is huge in making burn viable against other "Fast" clocks and can be the difference between surviving or simply dying to someone else's clock. Most of the time Lightning Helix goes to the face but there are times when it doesn't. However, what RB does have is more one drops (Bump in the Night) which provides two benefits. One being more interaction with monastery swiftspear and another in sneaking in an additional 3 points burn. In magical christmas land games you can occasionally close out the match with a flash back bump in long control games. In enough games this is something that occurs every now and then.
RB Burn doesn't suffer the game one matchup. It is consistent enough that this isn't the problem. No, the real issue RB has is the weak removal. Go for the Throat from my playtesting is the best removal RB has access to. Path to Exile matters just that much. As I alluded to in my post everything should be consistent and support the gameplan. Removal doesn't do this and is another exception here. The difference is that Path to Exile is a catch all answer to the biggest threats that plague us while only needing one mana. This way we can lavaspike, lightning bolt, rift bolt, grim lavamancer, goblin guide, monastery swiftspear, etc with our other land or if we're on three lands have options for Skullcrack, Helix, Charm, etc. This is a huge advantage and isn't at all small. This is actually something Elcon pointed out to me (which is why I said in my post he was absolutely right.).
However, there is a reason to still play RB Burn and it does have one advantage over it's peer. If you're in a meta that desires some form of land destruction Contaminated Ground just simply beats the age old Molten Rain. It's flat out better and it isn't a contest. The one mana cost less is a big deal and the fact that either A) They never touch that land again or B) Ignore it and continue to use that land and accumulating additional damage really just makes it better. The other reason Black is viable is in Rakdos Charm which if you are in a meta that is very go wide heavy it makes a very flexible side board card. Graveyard Hate, Go Wide Hate, and Artifact Removal hate. There's a lot of value in that one card. Now one thing I will contest is this:
RB Burn wasn't playable until Sovereign's bite. Sorry, I ran it before Sovereign's Bite as do some of our members but our main board was still inferior to RWg as well as our side board options. What did we run? Bump? Bump is decent but what else? Some tried Claim to Fame. You agree it doesn't work in a true burn shell. Right on. So what else? Gonti's? I kind of showed the data on why it's bad. Terrible top deck, too slow if you don't have it in your opening hand or second draw, and on top of that can be removed by cards that get rid of permanent. So it can essentially be counterspelled (this is the big one) by abrupt decay, maelstrom pulse, and others.
RW and RWg has access to in their variants both charm and helix. This meant they didn't need Atarka's (many learned this) which also meant less shocking to oneself and a more stable manabase. Less damage to yourself also meant you were able to race easier. Bump is good enough in RB but not by itself. Sovereign makes black a viable color main board but the problem is we need a better removal spell than Go for the Throat or Terminate. Still, RB is closer than it's ever been.
Last thing I'm going to say is this: Gonti's machination actually proved to me why RB was so inconsistent before Sovereign's. Gonti is the best and easiest black spell we could fit into burn since Bump and the spell had been the sole reason I lost 11 games. So despite being a one drop burn spell it was terrible. Sovereign's Bite, on the other hand, has always been consistent, has never been a dead card, and was always a good cast. There were games I wish I could have slammed a creature with it but it has always done what it needed to do. Do damage and buy time for me to close out the game. It's not just slightly better than Gonti's. It's miles ahead of Gonti's. RB Burn is now VERY consistent game 1. Every game where you need to board in hard removal your consistency falters. On the upside go wide decks, the Tron Variants, and other decks we side in for land destruction become a bit easier to take out. RB Burn is now a viable option in certain meta but in overall meta is now just behind RW/RWg. Give us a removal that says something like "(B) Exile target creature from the game you lose 2-3 life." and we become equals. It's really that close.
Edit: Though, like Elcon said. I doubt that'll happen. Most decks are very happy with Fatal Push.
I'm particularly happy to hear that sovereign's bite is good. Obviously a worse Helix, but I saw a lot of people just dismissing the card because of that and I knew it had potential. Definitely looking forward to change my Gonti's Machination for those.
(W/B)BW Tokens(W/B) | (B/R)Rakdos Burn(B/R) | (U/R)Gift Storm(U/R)
Thanks for the feedback! I actually just founds this Vs. Series video of burn playing the Todd Stevens' GW Company deck (it is, in fact, the same deck I played against): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC1zs8DzPoY
The Video shows Todd Anderson making a few poor decisions piloting burn. He's also playing a weird hybrid of Loic Le Briand's deck with Shrine of Burning Rage. I think I would have taken the shrines out against the company deck and still played the remove bird/control game. Courser of Kruphix is such an annoying card for burn, Stevens' deck is something I'll not enjoy coming up against in future modern nights at my LGS. Is it worth bringing in Destructive Revelry against the Coursers?
GWUBRDraft my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! and/or The Little Pauper Cube That Could!RBUWG
Modern:WDeath & TaxesW | RUGRUG DelverRUG
No problem! Actually, to be quite honest, I discovered Contaminated Ground's potential through you. It flew under my radar and I decided to give it a shot and came to the conclusion it is definitely superior to molten rain. I wouldn't run them main board and wouldn't run more than two in the side but it's definitely a solid card so thank you for that.
If your only target with Destructive is the Coursers I wouldn't do it or you might end up in the situation you were in before (With them in hand and the player never draws them.) this isn't at all a good situation to be in. If you're going to run Destructive you want to in a matchup where either you have multiple targets or against a deck that uses cards that might as well be "Do this or you lose." In this case I'd run Path if you feel you must have some form of removal. This way if they don't draw the coursers you still have targets to hit.
I agree that there's just no suitable replacement for Path, so I'm not trying to. I'm playing a RBw list right now, and that gives me the benefit of letting me keep enchantment removal.
Yeah, unfortunately it isn't as good as Path but I will definitely advocate it as our best removal spell. We already have enough artifact hate to not need terminate and our removal spell not having red is key for hitting things we want to hit that have protection. If you're running a splash of white then you can just use path anyway. As I mentioned even a "Exile target creature and take three." would more than be a viable enough removal spell. So shocking (or using a fetch making it a bolt) to get a Sacred Foundry for Path isn't a bad idea. In my meta there's enough anti-burn enchantments running around that I can't afford to give up revelry but your mileage might be different. For the meantime from my testing "usually" Go for the Throat is good enough but there's been cases (against decks you want removal and can seriously race you) that it's detrimental in the place of Path or just not good enough. Still, we're so so close now. If RWg Burn is Tier 1. I'd make the argument that we're Tier 1.5. If RWg Burn is Tier 1.5 then I'd make the argument that we're Tier 2 at this point. That's still plenty competitive.
I love that shock removal spell you made up. That could see print, easily.
Haha. Thanks. It's my dream black removal print. Also sounds like a suitable drawback I can envision black having. I doubt I'll ever see it but a man can dream, right?
1-2 in a double prize, 2-0-1 (split at the end) in the second double
1-2 in one single, 2-1, 3-0 in the others (the evening one of course, damn kid wouldn't split and let me go home)
I've been on a 19 land, 1 shard volley, 1 grim lavamancer, 3 helix build for the past few weeks. I'm looking at dropping the volley for a 20th land. I just had too many one-landers mulled or borderline keeps end up going nowhere. OR I drop the volley for the 4th helix, because a one-land hand with volley is awkward even if there are a couple of swiftspears or something else that could justify a keep in certain situations.
What I did really like, though, was finally being able to run DRev in the side as opposed to wear/tear and smash to smithereens on a split. It took me a couple of games to get used to thinking about fetching the stomping ground after not having it for two months.
That's my big issue with shard volley. Even at 20 lands the possible situation of a one lander with shard volley is very real or a situation where you're stuck on two lands, have a shard volley, and a bunch of two drops. In either situation Shard Volley becomes a hindrance. I'd drop the shard volley for another Helix. Personally I prefer 20 lands in a RW or RWg shell. I justify 19 lands with my RBg variant due to the 4 Bumps. Probably go down to 3 skullcracks for that 20th land. Right now in the current meta I believe Helix > Skullcrack.
The amusing thing about this is that Burn has dropped from Tier 1 just to be Tier 1 a month or two later. The meta is constantly shifting but the sheer number of 5-0+ wins Burn has had over the past three years isn't something that people can deny. When we're hated out our win% drops quite a bit but as soon as it does people stop hating us out and.. history repeats. Burn is always a safe meta deck because of the consistency. We'll always perform at least "well."
Pros typically understand decks, even aside from playing them, by having the sheer number of games against them but even then you're absolutely right. You can't truly know the in's and outs of a deck until you have played for many reps with said deck. Not everyone is going to be able to expertly pilot each deck either. I agree 100%.
I’m liking the change, and get why it’s the “pinnacle” version of burn. RB has that explosiveness that would get people to near lethal but I had a tough time closing in - esp vs Jeskai Control matchups, where they’d be at 1, and the rest of the game would be them countering and gaining life thanks to Lightninng Helix.
White really does offer a lot of wonderful options.
The question isn't "how many games does Ruins win." The question is "how many games are won by its ability compared to how many are lost due to taking extra damage." However, I have no need to scoff at an idea considering I'm only three months into the deck. I have said before that I play in a very VERY fair overall meta that is always half or more midrange and control. I'll try two ruins. However, it is critical to also realize that for red mana you have to ping yourself, which sucks against affinity, burn, etc.
As for the other questions, I absolutely love searing blood. Lavamancer gets two damage for two mana, so does blood, but it also can bolt the opponent. It also has summoning sickness, and if I am the control player I want to zap humans before they can get pumped by a lieutenant and put out of range. I don't think one is waaaaaay better than the other, but my preference is searing blood.
I'd bring in path against humans in order to kill auriok champion, especially if you don't draw bridge early. I think against affinity you bring in drev or smash over path for the same reason I like searing blood - you can keep the control plan going without slowing down too much.
Value Town I'd say path, because they probably board in obstinate baloths. Also kills voice of resurgence without worrying about tokens.
I don't think that Ramunap Ruins is playable. The ping can be too much against a fast aggro deck like Affinity and Humans and the sacrifice ability is not likely to be meaningful at all against a deck like that either. I'm sure it has won you some games, but it will cost you games while it's just an irrelevant land that pings you every time you have to tap it. It's not Barbarian Ring and there are some high hurdles you have to jump through in order to turn it on. You can't count on ever being able to use the tap ability unless you're playing against a very slow deck, and the card will hurt you against the fast ones.
In addition to that, I don't play it because there's no in the manabase for it. I believe that 3 Mountains is a firm minimum (and frankly, is also the maximum). I believe that 2 Foundry is a firm minimum. I believe that 3 Vantage is a firm minimum in RW. I believe that 10 fetches is a malleable minumum. Beyond that, I believe that RW needs 14 at least 14 white sources. So, that means that the defaults are 3 Mountain, 10 fetch, 2 Shock, 3 Vantage and that puts me at 18 lands, and I play another Vantage/Fetch to get to 19. Once you go shaving a lot of fetches for straight red lands, you're diluting your ability to get white.
I don't agree with your claim that "one of our main problem is lands after the fourth one". Burn is built to avoid flooding by playing a low land count. Even if you played 8 lands in your deck, there's a non-zero chance that you see all 8 in the top 10 cards of your deck. It's just variance from a random pile of cards. What Burn wants (against a goldfish) is to have just enough lands (but not more) to cast enough spells in the fewest turns. Ramunap Ruins does not accomplish that for you, because it's a meaningless card unless you've drawn several more lands that you didn't want to see. If you're flooding, there's a strong chance that your opponent is at 10 by the time you sacrifice RR. Getting them to 8 with RR is better than nothing, but you're still up a creek without a paddle. I think you're trying to solve a problem that isn't solvable and you're using a card that doesn't help solve the problem in order to solve it.
1. I think that you have too much red and not enough ability to color fix, and it's especially problematic that you're on 9 green sources. You can generally afford a tapped Vantage as the 4th land, and having 20 lands doesn't have a strong effect on flooding anyway.
2. I'd rather have Lavamancer, but I play them in the maindeck because of that.
3. I don't play Bridge because I don't want to dump 3 mana on it just to have it removed.
Ramunap Ruins isn't something I'd play outside of a budget mono red build for much the same reason as Elcon just listed. In a budget red build I'd use it simply because we have fewer good cards to get that last bit of damage to close out the game. However, here, we're talking about a budget list that isn't going to be as consistent as the fine tuned lists that actually put up results in events larger than an FNM. That one damage each time you use it for a red source adds up and sometimes (although it doesn't happen much) you're going to need to fetch a mountain with your fetches. I think one of your big issues is the fact that you're running only 8 fetches. You should really run the gamut of 10.
Look, I get what you're saying about closing out some games that allow you to get more than 4 mana but I'm going to make the presumption, based on experience, that what you're experiencing is confirmation bias. Let's talk about a relevant example. I play Rakdos Burn and have talked about it in length here on these forums. One of the reasons I run it is to have more one drops via Bump In the Night. However, the reasons I advocate Bump's effectiveness is as an additional 4 lavaspike. Not because it can be flashed back. Have I won games from flashing it back? Yes but those are rare. Here's another thing.. bump isn't costing me 1 life each turn like it would if I had two Ramunap ruins in my opening hand.
As for your question on side board.. Searing Blood is amazing for this meta and I wouldn't run a sideboard without it. At the same time I think you should be running Grim Lavamancers in your main. If you take a look at the winning burn lists nearly every list has at least 1 grim lavamancer. I don't believe you need any for your side. Also most of us are in agreement at this point and are moving away from the bridge plan. While it can close out games there's just too much variance and when you tap out just to have it removed it sets you back pretty far. As a burn deck we want to eliminate our opponent as quickly as possible so setting yourself back an entire turn is not an efficient way to win your gameplan.
These are just my thoughts on the matter.
You're gonna lose because you draw three straight lands sometimes. ***** happens. Don't make a finely-tuned deck in terms of MB worse 95% of the time so that you can feel better about a situation that occurs the remaining 5%.
I'm not necessarily arguging against RB, but RBW (I find color consistency to be victimized if we push tri-color in a blood moon meta.) I recognize there is some merit to RB, since it has more one drop spells due to Bump in the Night. The sideboard is also arguably stronger, since sometimes hte only white card we side in is path to exile. At least black would give fatal push, Rain of Gore, Rakdos Charm, and collective brutality (odd choices, but brutality is a "burn" spell by itself.
Your last statement is where I think the final nail in the coffin arrives when considering different color combinations. Black doesn't provide QUITE ENOUGH yet to justify dropping white altogether. If Deathrite Shaman were still legal, then yeah, I'd say RB were superior. But, for the time being, we would need a 2 mana burn spell that provides direct burn with some additional effect. It's really a shame Rakdos charm doesn't help burn at all main deck. There were quite a few good effects they could have packed in: deal 2 damage to target creature or player, destroy target artifact, remove two cards in a graveyard from the game. I would even be okay with a RB enhancement or 3 mana planeswalker (something burn desperately needs.) Collective brutality almost made the cut, but 2 damage to gain 2 life was not good enough.
I am definitely okay with doing testing on the RB front. I have both a hyper aggro and 1 drop RB emphasis with Bomat Courier I want to try. Here is the basic idea behind it:
4 Goblin Guide
4 Monastery Swiftspear
3 Grim Lavamancer
4 Bomat Courier
4 Bump in the Night
4 Rift Bolt
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
2 Shard Volley
4 Searing Blaze
20 Lands.
3 Destructive Revelery
3 Skullcrack
2 Searing Blood
3 Rakdos Charm (forgot this card is good against Affinity/Mardu/new goblins deck)
2 Sovereign's Bite
2 Fatal Push
That's more or less the idea. You want to play low cost, high efficiency spells and maximize the number of them you have through Bomat Courier. The higher cost spells are situational and thrown into the sideboard. I forgot how good Rakdos Charm was in this meta. Built in Relic, punishes affinity, new goblins, and mardu tokens, artifact hate.